Comment 23 for bug 717345

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

...
>> what does this mean? I wouldn't want to run > 1 conch per forking
>> service, or vice versa. If hes simply talking about having multiple
>> conch processes with an haproxy front end, we're already ready to do
>> that; the thing that andrew was working on for a status page is about
>> graceful handoffs when doing nodowntime deploys (and thats pretty
>> important in the long-running connection model of bzr).
>
> I think it's just that John sees this feature as "being worked on"
> whereas Robert sees it as "ready to deploy it and to do follow on
> work." (bug 702024, or RT 40480). It would let us if we wanted
> limit each conch to just 256 connections. I don't know of any plans
> to have other than one conch per forking server.
>

Right. It isn't in production, thus it is "being worked on".

As an aside, I would probably limit it a bit further than that for
safety margin, etc. But yes, theoretically limiting in the system to
prevent blowout.

We talked about increasing the number of file handles, but when wgrant
tested that on his machine, it caused problems because 'select' doesn't
like more than 1024 handles, and python has some internal MAX_FD set, etc.

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk1dXMQACgkQJdeBCYSNAANqKwCdFGKBfdwxmAoDTC3QxMwGWWjB
kdoAn2wCobBycdC35cmeTzF0RfU1Nhw7
=/Dni
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----